[ibis] Re: BIRD 178.2 recommendation from the ATM group

  • From: "Tom Dagostino" <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>, <ibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 16:59:32 -0700

Radek



Erroring out seems very unfriendly, why not open a dialogue with the user
and ask what is desired?



Tom Dagostino



Teraspeed Labs

9999 SW Wilshire Street

Suite 102

Portland, OR 97225



971-279-5325

<mailto:tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



From: ibis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of radek_biernacki@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 3:30 PM
To: wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx; Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx; ibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis] Re: BIRD 178.2 recommendation from the ATM group



Hi Arpad,



The user can mix/match files with different IBIS versions. As far as BIRD
178.2 is concerned it is very clear and in the case of an I/O models, the
model "Enable" will define the direction (although only one direction may be
supported, if defined as such by the model maker). Any older versions of
IBIS files should be interpreted the same way as they are today.





Executable is prohibited if the Model_type for the associated [Model] is
"I/O", "I/O_open_drain", "I/O_open_sink", "I/O_open_source", or "I/O_ECL".

Executable_Tx, Executable_Rx:

The Executable_Tx and Executable_Rx subparameters are alternatives to the
Executable subparameter, for I/O-capable buffers. The arguments (fields)
supported are syntactically identical to the Executable subparameter. At
least one Executable_Tx or one Executable_Rx subparameter is required if the
Model_type for the associated [Model] is "I/O", "I/O_open_drain",
"I/O_open_sink", "I/O_open_source", or "I/O_ECL". For all other Model_types
where [Algorithmic Model] is supported, only the Executable subparameter is
permitted. In these cases, the direction of the associated [Algorithmic
Model]s shall be assumed by the EDA tool to follow the [Model] Model_type
declaration.





It is not to the EDA tool to assume any "opposite" direction for the "other"
model. The EDA tool should rather error out if no Rx or no Tx is present.



Radek



From: ibis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Walter Katz
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 11:34 AM
To: Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx; ibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis] Re: BIRD 178.2 recommendation from the ATM group



Arpad,



I am not sure what you mean by "uses the features".



If you mean an Algorithmic Model section in an I/O [Model], then the problem
is not defined to the EDA tool.



If you mean that a channel has an AMI model in an Output [Model], and an AMI
model in an I/O [Model], then one could argue that the AMI model in the I/O
[Model] is an Rx model. This becomes problematic if that same AMI model in
an I/O [Model] is used in a channel with an AMI model in an Input [Model].



If you mean what happens if a .ami file has Rx Reserved Parameters and is
uses in an Output [Model], then the Rx parameters should be ignored.



Or did you mean something else?



Walter



From: ibis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 2:13 PM
To: ibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis] Re: BIRD 178.2 recommendation from the ATM group



I would like to ask a question.



What is the EDA tool expected to do when there are two AMI models

in a channel, one which uses the features outlined in this BIRD,

and another one which is an older model without these features.



Does the assumption that the older model without these parameters

must be the "opposite type" apply in this case? If so, should

this be mentioned in the BIRD? (Or is this there already, did

I just miss it)?



Thanks,



Arpad

=====================================================================







From: Bob Ross [mailto:bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 8:52 PM
To: ibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Muranyi, Arpad
Subject: RE: [ibis] BIRD 178.2 recommendation from the ATM group



IBIS reflector,



The pending editorial requests for the teleconference meeting are

documented below, and the BIRD178.2 with approved amendments would

become BIRD178.3.



The minor requested editorial changes involve terminology in Table 1:



Change Any to Rx, Tx

Change Rx-only to Rx

Change Tx-only to Tx



Also, after the end of the ANY OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION section and

before the first sentence: "Add the following text at the end of Section
10.7, .", add



"For each reserved parameter add one of these Direction choices, as
documented in Table 1

below, with the format positioned before the Descriptors heading:



Direction: Rx

Direction: Tx

Direction: Rx, Tx



Bob



From: ibis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ibis-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 1:02 PM
To: ibis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis] BIRD 178.2 recommendation from the ATM group



Hello IBIS Folks,



BIRD 178.2 "Specifying Buffer Directionality for AMI" was discussed

in today's IBIS-ATM teleconference, and a vote was taken to make a

recommendation to the IBIS Open Forum to schedule a vote on it to

approve it (with a minor editorial change) in the next IBIS Open

Forum teleconference with the goal to include the BIRD in the upcoming

IBIS specification which is currently being worked on in the IBIS

Editorial Task Group.



This email serves the purpose of officially relaying this decision

and recommendation to the IBIS Open Forum.



Questions or comments will be addressed in the IBIS Open Forum

teleconference in which this BIRD is scheduled to be voted on.



Thanks,



Arpad

========================================================================

Other related posts: